Violence in video games is a bit of a hot potato and has been for some time, and following E3 back in June, Epic Mickey 2's Creative Director Warren Spector supposedly gave his two cents on the games of the show, reportedly saying "the ultraviolence must end". Except according to Spector, he never actually said that at all.
“To be clear, I didn't say and I've never said and I don't believe that the violence must end. I could care less about violent video games," Spector told X360A during Gamescom. "I've made them, I don't believe in the media effects argument. I don't believe that violent video games cause anything in anyone really."
10°
30°
40°
10°
Ad 
0°
I'm only curious.
why would one have to trump the other if they arent even anywhere related?
As to the topic of violence. I was on youtube and came across an old show called Computer Chronicles. the episode in question was from December 1990 and it was a piece on the Genesis, Turbografx and Nintendo.
Even back then there was the question of violence in video games (I'm sure it goes back even further) and the opinion of which is better. Not much has changed over the last 20+ years with the exception of violence being more exploited to make the point of the game.
I have always believed that if you have to resort to an increase in sexuality, vulgar language or extensive violence then the game may lack real substance. It happens in movies when the plot (or story) isnt very intriguing. They use filler to cover up the inadequacies.
That isnt to say ALL movies or games do this. There are obviously ones that center around such factors to make the point. My gripe are those who have nothing else BUT to use those fillers.
Is there a line of bad taste? Yes but it varies from situation to situation. The two examples above of Last of Us and Epic Mickey 2. I expect there to be a sense of realism in Last of Us. That is the point the game is making to draw the player into the world on screen. I do not expect mickey to throw F-bombs around and pop caps in Donald or Goofy's azz if they step out of line in Mickey 2.
Like i said, they are two totally different games with different levels of depth to draw the player into their onscreen worlds.
Related video
Just because a game is rated R doesn't mean it's going to treat it's themes in an intelligent, mature fashion, and needless to say, games don't getted rated R for being intelligent.
I suppose based on impressions so far it certainly seems more mature than Uncharted, but we'll see. It is the first real totally serious game ND have made, so who knows how they'll handle it.
What do you do when your jealous of someone...you name call them or your nasty about them.
I mean it must be annoying to have a great idea for a game that you've poured your heart into only to see it get pushed to one side by like a dozen other meathead games which required next to no imagination or creativity to make.
So...
AC3, The Last of Us, Watchdogs...just some of the games at E3, took no imagination or creativiity to make.
Right...
Just because his game is colourful and cute dosen't mean it's better then other games out there. I thought the Last of Us for example looked amazing despite the guy taking a shotgun to the face
I think you missed the point Ges was making. While you can specify titles that would obviously take a bit more imagination and creativity (as you did). his generalization of titles overall is fair to assume.
Its kind of like, we know not "EVERY" game fits the profile but there are way more that fall into the generalization category than the specified.
i am unsure of the ratio but it would likely be something to where for every good legitimate game that displays imagination and creativity there are dozens of others that do not. Thus the generalization comment.
Personally, i agree there are plenty of diamonds in the rough. Its just sometimes hard to see them when the rough is so overgrown. Unless of course you are someone who follows the industry very closely.
True dedicated gamers may be like that but the "general" consumer may not be the one to frequent sites like this or do their homework on the titles coming soon.
I'm sure they're not without their merits of course, but what I'm really referring to are games in general, and how many of them really are just astonishingly shallow experiences compared to some of the more creative stuff out there; the stuff you can tell has a lot of heart.
That being said, part two to Epic Mickey looks to be headed down the same path. I haven't heard or read a single quote from anyone other than Spector about this game.
No one.
So either no one has played it, or no one cares enough to write about or worse, it just sucks.
I'll wait and see what reviews come down the pike. I normally don't wait for those, but in this case I'll make and exception since I got burnt the first time.
But EPIC, the game is not.